Hospitals and Clinicians need not apply: Withdrawing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in undisputed cases

Abstract

In 2018 the United Kingdom Supreme Court decided in An NHS Trust v Y [2018] 3 WLR 751; [2018] UKSC 46 that the time had come to move on from the “good practice” requirement in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 for hospitals and doctors to obtain court approval before life-prolonging treatment can be withheld or withdrawn from a patient in a permanent vegetative state (PVS). It held that it is no longer necessary to involve the court in every case before life-sustaining clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) can be withdrawn. Provided the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (England and Wales) and relevant professional guidance are followed, and there is no difference of medical opinion or lack of agreement from interested parties, in particular family members, with the proposed course of action, legal permission is not required. The ruling applies to PVS patients, as well as, more controversially, those in a minimally conscious state (MCS), the newer diagnosis identified post-Bland. This commentary summarises the Supreme Court’s decision, and considers some implications for England and Wales, as well as for Australia and New Zealand, where there is no recommended practice of, much less any legal requirement for hospitals to seek court approval, even in disputed cases.